Atheists are among the least spoken groups in political life. Politicians refer to every kind of religion. They praise Christian heritage, show respect for Jewish communities, meet Muslim leaders, and even flatter vague spirituality. Yet they almost never mention atheists. If they do, it often leads to tension, controversy, or silence. Religion is treated as sacred, while atheism is treated as dangerous. The pattern is global. It reveals prejudice, hypocrisy, and the hidden limits of democratic speech.
Historical background
The history of politicians mentioning atheists is short, sharp, and almost always controversial. In the United States, George H. W. Bush once said in 1987, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” That remark did not harm his career. It reflected mainstream prejudice.
Other American politicians used the word “atheist” as a synonym for immorality, communism, or foreign influence. During the Cold War, atheism became shorthand for the Soviet enemy. The word itself turned toxic.
In Europe, the story was mixed. Socialist and communist leaders in the 20th century sometimes invoked atheism as a sign of progress. Yet even there, it carried stigma. In liberal democracies, politicians preferred silence. Secularization in Western Europe weakened religious rhetoric, but atheists rarely appeared as a recognized group. Only in Scandinavia or the Czech Republic could politicians speak openly about atheism without serious damage to their careers.
Why atheists are controversial
Atheists remain controversial because they touch the core of human tradition. Religion shaped law, morality, and authority for centuries. Rejecting God was long seen as rejecting morality itself. Even today, surveys show that voters distrust atheists more than any other minority. They are seen as untrustworthy, cold, or even dangerous.
Some researchers in evolutionary psychology suggest a possible explanation. In early societies, fear of supernatural punishment may have stabilized groups. Belief in gods who watched and punished could have reinforced cooperation. Doubting those gods might have looked like a threat to the social order. That suspicion may linger. Even modern democracies often carry the assumption that morality comes from faith, leaving unbelievers outside the moral circle.
The reaction when a politician mentions atheists
When a politician dares to mention atheists, the reaction comes quickly. Media frame the statement as radical or reckless. Rivals use it to mobilize religious voters. Churches and religious groups accuse the politician of disrespecting values. Even neutral statements—like simply recognizing atheists as equal citizens—can spark outrage.
Barack Obama in 2009 included nonbelievers in his inaugural address, saying: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.” That single word, nonbelievers, triggered a wave of commentary. Critics accused him of weakening national identity. Supporters hailed it as a breakthrough. The tiny gesture revealed the depth of the taboo.
Case studies in the United States
Bush Sr.’s quote remains infamous. Yet it never damaged his political standing. By contrast, Obama’s mild recognition of atheists in his speech was seen as bold. The difference shows how exclusion is accepted but inclusion is controversial.
Even today, few U.S. politicians mention atheists directly. They speak of “faith communities” and “people of values” but leave unbelievers unnamed. In practice, this creates a silence that excludes millions of citizens.
Case studies in Europe
In France, politicians avoid the word “atheist” even though the state is legally secular. They rely on the word laïcité, which emphasizes neutrality rather than disbelief. In Britain, leaders still wrap their speeches in religious language. Tony Blair once said that faith had given him strength in politics, while his spin doctor Alastair Campbell famously remarked, “We don’t do God.” That comment itself showed the tension: politicians invoke faith but fear the controversy of discussing atheism.
In Scandinavia, things are more relaxed. Former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt openly described herself as nonreligious. In Sweden, atheist identification is common and carries no stigma. In the Czech Republic, where most people identify as nonbelievers, politicians treat atheism as ordinary. But outside these exceptions, silence still dominates.
Revolutionary and authoritarian cases
The French Revolution pushed atheism into politics with radical force. Jacques Hébert, leader of the Hébertists, mocked priests and promoted the Cult of Reason. In 1793, he declared: “We must destroy the idea of God, because it is the soul of despotism.” For a brief time, this was rewarded. But Robespierre later condemned open atheism, imposing the Cult of the Supreme Being. Hébert was executed, showing how quickly political winds can turn.
The Soviet Union enforced atheism as state doctrine. Lenin wrote in 1905: “Every religious idea, every idea of God, every flirtation with the ‘beyond’ is the most dangerous abomination.” Under Stalin, politicians who promoted atheism were rewarded with power. Those who defended religion faced prison, exile, or execution. Atheism became a mandatory dogma. It was no longer a free choice but a state weapon.
In Maoist China, atheism was tied to Communist Party loyalty. Mao himself declared religion “poison.” Politicians gained favor by denouncing belief. Yet this was not liberation of thought but submission to ideology.
Beyond the West: India, Middle East, and Latin America
In India, atheists face hostility. Rationalist politician Narendra Dabholkar, who campaigned against superstition, was assassinated in 2013. The message was clear: open atheism can be deadly. Politicians rarely risk the label, even in a formally secular state.
In Pakistan and Bangladesh, atheism is criminalized under blasphemy laws. Politicians mention atheists only as enemies of the state. In 2017, Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called atheism “a threat to the country’s ideology.” The word itself is political poison.
In Saudi Arabia, the regime equates atheism with terrorism. A 2014 law listed atheists alongside violent extremists. Mentioning atheists positively is impossible. Across the Middle East, disbelief is suppressed by law, society, and political culture.
In Latin America, the situation is softer but still restrictive. Leaders almost always invoke God in speeches. Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales used religious language to frame their politics. Even secular leftists stop short of endorsing atheism. In urban centers like Buenos Aires, São Paulo, or Mexico City, secular movements are growing. But at the political level, atheism remains avoided.
Statistics and surveys
Data confirm what history suggests. In the United States, Gallup surveys show that atheists are the least likely group voters would support for president. In 2019, only 60% of Americans said they would vote for an atheist candidate — compared to over 90% for a Catholic, a Jew, or even a Muslim.
A 2014 Pew survey found that Americans ranked atheists below Muslims, immigrants, and gays when asked about trust and shared values. In Europe, Eurobarometer data reveal wide differences. Over 70% of people identify as nonreligious In Sweden. In Poland, only 5% do. This shapes political risk: a Swedish politician can mention atheists without fear, while a Polish one cannot.
Globally, the situation is more extreme. The WIN-Gallup International survey in 2012 found that only 13% of people worldwide identified as convinced atheists. In countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, that number was below 1%. In China, by contrast, over 60% identified as nonreligious or atheist. These numbers explain why mentioning atheists in politics can be either harmless or career-ending, depending on geography.
The double standard
The double standard is global. Politicians can insult atheists without consequence. They can describe them as immoral, soulless, or dangerous. No scandal follows. But attacking religious groups sparks immediate outrage. Even defending atheists can provoke accusations of hostility to religion. Free speech is praised in theory but denied in practice when it comes to irreligion.
This hypocrisy is striking. Atheists are accused of lacking morality, yet many religious leaders exposed in corruption or abuse scandals still receive protection and loyalty. Religion receives automatic respect. Disbelief receives contempt. Politics reflects and reinforces this bias.
Consequences for the politician
For any politician, the risks are obvious. Religious donors can withdraw funding. Churches can mobilize their followers against them. Rivals can brand them as radicals. In conservative societies, even being suspected of atheism can end a career.
Yet opportunities exist. In secular environments, mentioning atheists can build credibility. Younger voters often see honesty as courage. They are tired of empty religious language. Politicians who speak of atheists respectfully can signal independence. For a minority of leaders, the risk pays off by creating a loyal base among secular citizens.
The wider significance
The pattern matters far beyond speeches. A democracy that fears open talk about one group is not fully democratic. Atheists pay taxes, work in hospitals, teach in schools, and serve in armies. They are citizens like anyone else. Yet they remain distrusted. The prejudice reveals how fragile tolerance can be when tested against disbelief.
It also matters for culture, education, and law. As long as atheists remain excluded from open recognition, religion retains disproportionate influence over politics. A truly secular society cannot exist without normalizing atheism in political life. The way politicians treat atheists is a mirror of how democracies handle difference itself.
Conclusion
Mentioning atheists in politics takes courage. It exposes the hypocrisy of protecting religion while marginalizing disbelief. It forces societies to face prejudice they prefer to ignore. And it shows how far democracies still are from genuine equality.
Atheists are not outsiders. They are citizens. They shape culture, science, and politics as much as believers do. Silencing them is not neutrality. It is discrimination. A democracy worthy of the name must embrace the right to believe and the right not to believe. Only then will mentioning atheists stop being a scandal and start being a normal part of public life.
Leave a Reply